Sunday, November 22, 2015

Some Details on South Second Agreement

Deeming it a royal pain in the derriere to download each and every resolution and ordinance on the Nov. 23 agenda, I went to the Plainfield Public Library to look at the printed packet. Alas, there wasn't one. I was told it is electronic and paperless now.

There is a hard copy in the clerk's office that is made available at the meeting, but as far as giving a comprehensive preview over the weekend, fuggedaboutit.

I did try to plow through the Second Street draft agreement. It is over 60 pages long, with lots of legalese.
Among the proposed terms:
The developer will pay the city $250,000 for the five-acre plot and the city is selling it "as-is."
The developer will have to deal with any environmental issues.
The developer can terminate if there is no PILOT agreement within 90 days.
There will be a $50,000 donation to Hannah Atkins Community Center
A 20 percent goal for minority employment is part of the deal.
The identity of those behind the LLC has to be disclosed at some point.

The resolution that will be up for a vote has a lot of background about the 1999 redevelopment plan for 197 city-owned properties. and the "New Redevelopment Area" that includes 662-758 South Second Street. South Second Street Redevelopment LLC proposes a 44,000-square foot commecial building and 130 units of residential housing in two five-story buildings. The resolution, R 446-15, authorizes Mayor Adrian O. Mapp to execute the redevelopment agreement.

Please note that Monday's combined agenda-fixing and regular meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. in Municipal Court, following a City Council executive session starting at 6 p.m. 


  1. Fear not. Our intrepid counsel members have studied every line on our behalf.I am confident their decision will reflect the concern they have for their fellow citizens.

  2. Since the PILOT is both a potentially contentious issue, and a fundamental component, why isn't it dealt with concurrently? Probably because the terms are not advantageous to the City and the 90 days enables the developer to use the defined period as leverage to accept, rather than to abandon the plan. Why aren't the principals identified? Doesn't the public, who theoretically owns the property, have a right to know who is involved? Is the Developer so onerous that his identity would spark public outrage?
    Bill Kruse